Company of Heroes: Eastern Front [MOD]

[Shakermaker]

Since it doesn't seem likely that Relic will deliver some Commie vs. Nazi action soon, a couple of modders decided to add it themselves. Judging by the videos they put on YouTube this will be a quality mod, adding a complete new faction for skirmish and online action, and maybe a singleplayer campaign in the future. The teching up is done yet differently than with the 4 factions available at the moment. There are also a couple of other Soviet-specific features:

No Starting Unit
The first thing you will recognize is that the Soviet Union has no starting unit. This is because the fascist pigs caught us by surprise. While we trusted in the non-aggression treaty, they amassed troops at our border, supposedly for relaxation and to protect them from British bombers. To us that seemed reasonable at the time, which is why we were not prepared for the war. While this puts us at a disadvantage in the beginning, we are able to train a large variety of troops in a relatively short amount of time.

No Retreat
By Order No. 00227 by the People’s Commissar of Defense of the USSR Comrade Stalin has ordered us that retreat is not an option anymore. Deserters will be shot. Soviet Union troops cannot retreat, but they are cheap and more of them just keep on coming. Not one step back!

No Recrewing
Our honorable soldiers would never pickup axis heavy weapons to use them. They would not know how to use them anyway. And, the German weapons are prone to breakdown. But this lack of training means the same for our own guns. Soviet Union infantry cannot recrew heavy weapons. As compensation, Soviet weapon crews number four men.

Of course the units are all custom made. They range from conscripts to the huge Stalin tank. There are also three commander trees: Propaganda (with Stalin Organs), Urban Combat (with a Hero of the Soviet Union sniper) and Breakthrough which seems specialized for tanks. The mod also comes with a third Axis army, but not a lot is known about that. And since it wouldn't be fun to play in Normandy, the mod comes with a whopping new 15 maps ranging from Berlin to Stalingrad.

Kinda psyched for this myself. Check out an extensive mod guide here. The Eastern Front mod for Company of Heroes will be released on January the 21st.

 

[Thunderclap]

Shit. Sounds awesome. I've always wanted an Eastern Front map. How will they handle the distances? I mean, battles like Kursk, that area's just rolling seas of empty grassland stretching to the horizon. You can't have the close-quartered chaos you had in the urban and hedgerow environments of Normandy.

 

[Shakermaker]

Seems there is a bit of everything: urban maps, big industrial complexes and rural maps. Check this video out for some examples of maps:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCCjCiaCWU0

 

[Thunderclap]

That last shot of the assault on the Brandenburg Gate... Oh. My. God.

Excuse me while I change my pants. The Katyushas also rocked. If we get Commissars as special units, then I will be there on day one.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Never liked the tank combat in CoH. Tanks could endured far too much damage and were too maneuverable.

 

[B_MAN]

wow, this could be just the thing to get me back into COH
looks great!

 

[Dalamari]

wow, this could be just the thing to get me back into COH
looks great!

This.

Finally a reason to reinstall CoH, besides how awesome it is.

 

[Viperidae]

Never liked the tank combat in CoH. Tanks could endured far too much damage and were too maneuverable.

lululululul

Learn2resource.

 

[Shakermaker]

lululululul

Learn2resource.

Learn to use support for your tanks rather. Having some bazooka units nearby, an anti tank gun or even a mortar unit can make the difference.

 

[Tagaziel]

I like the mod, except for one thing: the assumption that the USSR actually believed in the non-aggression treaty.

Hint: the USSr was getting ready for an invasion of their own.

 

[staticprimer]

Seems there is a bit of everything: urban maps, big industrial complexes and rural maps. Check this video out for some examples of maps:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCCjCiaCWU0

Heh. Requiem for a Dream could make grocery shopping seem epic.

 

[Thunderclap]

It really can. I love that song.

 

[Shift]

I am glad I kept CoH installed afterall. I stopped playing because I was playing team games and you just got team mates bitching on at how crap every else was when our team were loosing, and couldn't grasp that the other team were pros, I quit and never went back. But this will likely bring me back.

 

[Combine Hybrid]

Is this mod for the original CoH?

 

[Shakermaker]

I like the mod, except for one thing: the assumption that the USSR actually believed in the non-aggression treaty.

Hint: the USSr was getting ready for an invasion of their own.

Depends on who you read. The fact of the matter is that the Red Army wasn't ready for war, neither defensive nor offensive. The cadre of officers was culled during the Great Purge of the late 30's, so the leadership was beheaded. Also, a lot of people with modern ideas were either killed or incarcerated and the generals left in charge were very conservative in their thinking. It took the Stavka over a year to adapt to the new style of waging war and by then ze Germans were on the shore of the Volga.

Is this mod for the original CoH?

From the Q&A:

Q: What do I need to play EF?
A: You only need a single copy of either CoH, OF or ToV. Having two or more of them is fine as well.

 

[Thunderclap]

I just checked the website. There is a unit called Conscripts.

Their upgrades are Molotov Cocktails, Extra Rifles, and Commissar

This mod will rock

 

[kupocake]

Company of Heroes is right after Alpha Centauri on the list of games I love and completely prohibitively suck at.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Depends on who you read. The fact of the matter is that the Red Army wasn't ready for war, neither defensive nor offensive. The cadre of officers was culled during the Great Purge of the late 30's, so the leadership was beheaded. Also, a lot of people with modern ideas were either killed or incarcerated and the generals left in charge were very conservative in their thinking. It took the Stavka over a year to adapt to the new style of waging war and by then ze Germans were on the shore of the Volga.

The other issue was potential Japanese Invasion in the East (Which the Japanese did plan for, but never carried out after being soundly beaten an Khalkhin Gol and deciding that they could take over the whole pacific faster than the yanks & limies could stop them), which is why the soviets did not initially deploy the Siberian Divisions and of course Stalin thinking that the British were lying when they told him about a planned German invasion to try and draw the USSR into the war to take the pressure off the West.

 

[Lucid]

Sweet ****.
I'd reinstall CoH but the patching process is a bitch.

 

[Krynn72]

That guy is striking a hot pose in that first screenshot. Glad to see they captured the essence of the Russian soldier's spirit, showing how they're ready to stop everything and disco dance at a moments notice. Few games show that aspect of the war.

 

[DigiQ8]

Time to install CoH again.

 

[Ennui]

Oh **** yes I've been waiting for someone to make this mod ever since COH came out. I'm all over this. Looks like whoever's behind making this is pretty solid in their historical knowledge too, I really am digging this.

 

[unozero]

it would be easier to play Men of War.

 

[Viperidae]

it would be easier to play Men of War.

The hilarity of this thread continues.

 

[unozero]

The hilarity of this thread continues.

huh...?

 

[Tagaziel]

Depends on who you read. The fact of the matter is that the Red Army wasn't ready for war, neither defensive nor offensive. The cadre of officers was culled during the Great Purge of the late 30's, so the leadership was beheaded. Also, a lot of people with modern ideas were either killed or incarcerated and the generals left in charge were very conservative in their thinking. It took the Stavka over a year to adapt to the new style of waging war and by then ze Germans were on the shore of the Volga.

Popular myth, perpetuated by Soviet propaganda and, sadly, Wikipedia.

Why do you think Soviet materiel losses were so high in the first days of Fall Barbarossa? Unless Stalin was stupid enough to consider locations right next to a potential frontline the safest place in the world, the only explanation is that they were massing for an invasion of their own.

Yes, the Red Army wasn't ready for war, because they were readying themselves for it. According to available data, it was supposed to happen just two weeks later than Barbarossa.

Ironically, we can thank Hitler for being free people.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Learn to use support for your tanks rather. Having some bazooka units nearby, an anti tank gun or even a mortar unit can make the difference.

My problem is it's very unrealistic rather than difficult.

 

[Shakermaker]

Popular myth, perpetuated by Soviet propaganda and, sadly, Wikipedia.

Why do you think Soviet materiel losses were so high in the first days of Fall Barbarossa? Unless Stalin was stupid enough to consider locations right next to a potential frontline the safest place in the world, the only explanation is that they were massing for an invasion of their own.

Yes, the Red Army wasn't ready for war, because they were readying themselves for it. According to available data, it was supposed to happen just two weeks later than Barbarossa.

Ironically, we can thank Hitler for being free people.

Geez, your condescension never fails to amaze me, but I will try to have a proper historical discussion with you anyway.

My post wasn't based on Wikipedia but books. The Court of the Red Czar by Montefiore for example. It is a recent biography of Stalin and his clique which is based on new material that has been released in the last ten years. No Soviet propaganda here, but diaries of the Soviet leadership. They paint a very clear picture: the Russians were utterly surprised by operation Barbarossa and the Red Army wasn't ready to fight a war. If the Soviets had massed an army on their western border for an attack on Nazi Germany, you might have expected a proper defense. The reality was very different though.

Simple military logic also helps a lot in disproving your point. If you want to attack a country you will need more troops than your opponent to be successful. A rate of 2 to 1 is ideal, but Hitler couldn't muster more than 4 million men, both in the line and behind it, against about 3 million Soviet troops. You would have expected the Red Army to be a lot bigger if they were about to attack Germany. You would have also expected the Soviets to mount a proper defense if they were ready to fight a war, but in fact they were wtfpwnd in the first weeks of Barbarossa.

You cite the loss of a lot of Soviet men and material in the first few weeks of the German assault as proof that the Russians were about to launch an invasion themselves. The logic of that reasoning is lost on me. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact allied the Germans and the Soviets but they didn't have an easy relationship at all. Stalin knew that Hitler wasn't to be trusted, so he had to have troops on border in the event of a German attack. And Soviet Russia isn't a tiny country you can defend with two or three divisions. You need hundreds of thousands of men guarding the border from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Those troops were in place on June 21st 1941, but they weren't led properly and their matériel was vastly inferior to the weapons systems the Germans had. No wonder that Soviet soldiers were rounded up by the tens of thousands.

Out of curiosity, what are the sources for your version of events?

My problem is it's very unrealistic rather than difficult.

Yeah, I never said it was easy

 

[Shift]

Its not exactly a game fully based on realism though. I too had a lot of trouble at playing the game for a while but you have just got to be ambitous with your thinking, and have the balls to take initiative even if its a slight gap in the enemy defence. Like you are the allies, and you are being pounded by screaming maries (those bloody rocket batteries that destroy everything), launch a suicide unit to take them out, you may get lucky and capture one. Basically you have micromanagement at such a high level, and you need a full understand of the game and what to do in any situation, and if you want to win games, you have play aggressively, you have to suffocate your opponents, and no just through military, but through attrition, launching units against their fuel and munitions supplies even if its held for a few minutes will seriously hamper his production line.

And I too have read a lot into Soviet Russia during WW2, and it is definately fair to say that Babarossa was a surpise attack. Stalin had troops stationed on the border as Shaker said, but they didn't forsee an attack of that magnitude, at least not at the time. The entire army was thrown into disarray, if it wasn't for the Russian winter then the Nazis would have marched right across Russia and claimed it for their own. They were within 1 or 2km of Moscow when the advance halted, by which Russia deployed its reserved, special winter fighting units against them. All of which bought enough time for the Soviet's to re-organize and start amassing a counter offensive. Had the Ruskies been amassing for an offensive of their own, the Germans would have had a much harder time when attacking them, but they ran over them as if they weren't there.

 

[ríomhaire]

Sounds pretty damn good. Must downloading when it's out. I've never played a CoH mod before. Are there any other goods ones?

 

[Shakermaker]

The Battle of the Bulge mod is supposedly the best around.

 

[Tagaziel]

Geez, your condescension never fails to amaze me, but I will try to have a proper historical discussion with you anyway.

I'm condenscending? Not consciously, at any rate.

My post wasn't based on Wikipedia but books. The Court of the Red Czar by Montefiore for example. It is a recent biography of Stalin and his clique which is based on new material that has been released in the last ten years. No Soviet propaganda here, but diaries of the Soviet leadership. They paint a very clear picture: the Russians were utterly surprised by operation Barbarossa and the Red Army wasn't ready to fight a war. If the Soviets had massed an army on their western border for an attack on Nazi Germany, you might have expected a proper defense. The reality was very different though.

First of all, if you are preparing for an attack, why would you prepare for defense? It's internally contradictive.

Second, just how extensive are those diaries? Zhukov's diaries paint a picture of a great leader of the people with little to no flaws, but that's hardly the real general. My point is, the danger of writing historical books based on diaries, especially Soviet ones, is that they are subjective, not objective.

Simple military logic also helps a lot in disproving your point. If you want to attack a country you will need more troops than your opponent to be successful. A rate of 2 to 1 is ideal, but Hitler couldn't muster more than 4 million men, both in the line and behind it, against about 3 million Soviet troops. You would have expected the Red Army to be a lot bigger if they were about to attack Germany. You would have also expected the Soviets to mount a proper defense if they were ready to fight a war, but in fact they were wtfpwnd in the first weeks of Barbarossa.

To begin with, 3 milion troops is not a small number, especially if you have a clear technological advantage (which is another myth - the USSR was the most militarily advanced nation in 1941) and still time to rally troops (military formations were still arriving from deep inside the USSR). You yourself say that Hitler could muster 4 milion men and attacked with them, but his armament was inferior both technologically and numerically.

You cite the loss of a lot of Soviet men and material in the first few weeks of the German assault as proof that the Russians were about to launch an invasion themselves. The logic of that reasoning is lost on me. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact allied the Germans and the Soviets but they didn't have an easy relationship at all. Stalin knew that Hitler wasn't to be trusted, so he had to have troops on border in the event of a German attack. And Soviet Russia isn't a tiny country you can defend with two or three divisions. You need hundreds of thousands of men guarding the border from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Those troops were in place on June 21st 1941, but they weren't led properly and their matériel was vastly inferior to the weapons systems the Germans had. No wonder that Soviet soldiers were rounded up by the tens of thousands.

Instead of comparing each and every tank by hand, I'll refer you to Mark Solonin's 22nd June 1941, which is a very good compilation of materials and references, supporting the "Soviet invasion" theory.

Best tanks of both sides in June 1941: T-34 and Panzer III J.

T-34: 28.5 tons, 500 HP, 45/40mm armour, 50km/h top speed, 300km of range, 76mm cannon with 1000m of effective range against enemy Pz. III J with non-sloped armour.

Pz. III J: 21,6 tons, 3000 HP, 50/30mm range, 40 km/h top speed, 145km of range, 50mm cannon with little effectivess against T-34s sloped armour.

And there were twice as much T-34s as there were Pz. IIIs.

There was more than enough tanks, guns and aircraft to compensate for the relatively equal number.

Now, tell me, if Stalin knew that Hitler couldn't be trusted, why weren't the bunkers manned? The Stalin Line was all but abandoned. Why weren't roads mined and materiel located behind friendly fortifications, instead of right next to the frontline?

If you plan to defend, you can do it with a fraction of the thousands of tanks, guns and aircraft massed on the Russian/German border in 1941. And you do it with fortifications, not field bases right next to the frontline.

Out of curiosity, what are the sources for your version of events?

Victor Suvorov, Mark Solonin, official specifications of German and Soviet weapon systems, plus the books and materials cited by the aforementioned authors (Solonin's more credible, as every memo, statistic and number he is has a reference and citation).

And then there's Occam's Razor. The official version, that the USSR was unprepared and technologically inferior both doesn't survive clash with the reality (the latter even more so if you actually examine the figures and technical data yourself) and requires far too many assumptions to be true (e.g. Stalin being terminally stupid and actually believing in the neutrality pact - enough to consider the border with the Third Reich and GG to be safe enough to act as an ordnance storage area).

Yes, the Germans did win. But it wasn't thanks to their superior technology or numbers. The Blitzkrieg simply proved effective at disintegrating the Soviet chain of command, leaving the Soviet Army a disorganised, ineffective mess. In this state, even the most advanced weapons won't help if you don't know who's in charge, where's the enemy or who to shoot.

 

[Ennui]

Good lord. I'm a Russian minor and I've taken Russian history classes but I'm not even going to touch this (although I would say I agree more with Shaker).

I do find your assertion that Hitler saved the free world by invading and thus preventing Stalin from doing the opposite interesting given that I usually argue that Stalin saved the free world by spending the 30s making Russia capable of repulsing Hitler (all the forced industrialization stuff, etc) - not arguing for Stalin as a good or any way moral force ofc.

 

[Shift]

The world would be a very different place if it wasn't for Stalin, despite the fact he was a mass-murdering wanker.

 

[Bob_Marley]

I do find your assertion that Hitler saved the free world by invading and thus preventing Stalin from doing the opposite interesting given that I usually argue that Stalin saved the free world by spending the 30s making Russia capable of repulsing Hitler (all the forced industrialization stuff, etc) - not arguing for Stalin as a good or any way moral force ofc.

I'd argue that Roosevelt & Churchill saved the free world when the tricked Stalin into accepting Eastern Europe in exchange for having the USSR become a proper state and not acting like a political movement. From that moment on the Soviet Union was doomed.

 

[Viperidae]

I've never played a CoH mod before. Are there any other goods ones?

The best mod is Vanilla CoH--have everyone agree never to play OF factions.

 

[Shakermaker]

First of all, if you are preparing for an attack, why would you prepare for defense? It's internally contradictive.

The Russians had the defenses and they had the troops. It would have been very easy for them to switch to a defensive war if they would have been ready. But they weren't. The offensive in Finland the winter before proved, if anything, that the Red Army wasn't able to wage war yet, either offensive or defensive.

Second, just how extensive are those diaries? Zhukov's diaries paint a picture of a great leader of the people with little to no flaws, but that's hardly the real general. My point is, the danger of writing historical books based on diaries, especially Soviet ones, is that they are subjective, not objective.

It isn't a biography based on diaries. That would be stupid. Montefiore simply uses those sources to illustrate certain facts. According to him Stalin wanted to keep the peace and in the first hours of Barbarossa even ordered to not give into what he supposed was still a German provocation, not an offensive.

To begin with, 3 milion troops is not a small number, especially if you have a clear technological advantage (which is another myth - the USSR was the most militarily advanced nation in 1941) and still time to rally troops (military formations were still arriving from deep inside the USSR). You yourself say that Hitler could muster 4 milion men and attacked with them, but his armament was inferior both technologically and numerically.

Sorry but are you seriously suggesting that the USSR was the most militarily advanced nation in 1941? With what exactly? Their Polikarpov biplanes? Even the T34 was an example of brilliant simplicity, not technological design. A farmer that was proficient with a tractor could drive a T34. The Russians were able to whip their industry into overdrive and that saved their butts.

Instead of comparing each and every tank by hand, I'll refer you to Mark Solonin's 22nd June 1941, which is a very good compilation of materials and references, supporting the "Soviet invasion" theory.
Best tanks of both sides in June 1941: T-34 and Panzer III J.
T-34: 28.5 tons, 500 HP, 45/40mm armour, 50km/h top speed, 300km of range, 76mm cannon with 1000m of effective range against enemy Pz. III J with non-sloped armour.
Pz. III J: 21,6 tons, 3000 HP, 50/30mm range, 40 km/h top speed, 145km of range, 50mm cannon with little effectivess against T-34s sloped armour.
And there were twice as much T-34s as there were Pz. IIIs.
There was more than enough tanks, guns and aircraft to compensate for the relatively equal number.

The T34 was better than the Mk. III or even the Mk. IV. That is no secret. In a 1 versus 1 duel the Russians would win easily. But war isn't fought that way. What the Germans understood was that you need to attack with a large formation concentrated on a very specific part of the front. In that way you will gain numerical superiority in that specific region and with good coordination through radio sets (which the Russian tanks sorely lacked) execute a pinpoint attack. Just outflank a couple of T34's and strike them from the back where they are weak.

Now, tell me, if Stalin knew that Hitler couldn't be trusted, why weren't the bunkers manned? The Stalin Line was all but abandoned. Why weren't roads mined and materiel located behind friendly fortifications, instead of right next to the frontline?
If you plan to defend, you can do it with a fraction of the thousands of tanks, guns and aircraft massed on the Russian/German border in 1941. And you do it with fortifications, not field bases right next to the frontline.

According to what I read about the subject Stalin didn't want to provoke Hitler into a war. He didn't want to appear belligerent in any way so he ordered his troops to basically stand down. This could have also been a pose, reminiscent of 1812. Czar Alexander lured Napoleon into a war and did his utmost to not appear the provoking party. If that Soviet historian Suvulov and Solonin (too bad most of their work isn't translated yet; I don't read Russian) are right, Stalin's handling of the situation could be the perfect ruse to start a war with Germany. He didn't fare very well though the first year and a half.

And then there's Occam's Razor. The official version, that the USSR was unprepared and technologically inferior both doesn't survive clash with the reality (the latter even more so if you actually examine the figures and technical data yourself) and requires far too many assumptions to be true (e.g. Stalin being terminally stupid and actually believing in the neutrality pact - enough to consider the border with the Third Reich and GG to be safe enough to act as an ordnance storage area).

Yes, the Germans did win. But it wasn't thanks to their superior technology or numbers. The Blitzkrieg simply proved effective at disintegrating the Soviet chain of command, leaving the Soviet Army a disorganised, ineffective mess. In this state, even the most advanced weapons won't help if you don't know who's in charge, where's the enemy or who to shoot.

How were the Germans able then to stay on the offensive until the end of 1942? True, the Russians fought back in the winter of 41/42 but the results they booked were hardly permanent. As soon as the campaigning season started again in the spring of 1942, the Wehrmacht was marching east again. A Blitzkrieg attack can put an army into disarray for days, maybe weeks, but not eighteen months. The only logical reason for that is that the Red Army wasn't ready for war. Stalin knew this and that was why he tried to keep the peace with Hitler as best as he could.

 

[Tagaziel]

The Russians had the defenses and they had the troops. It would have been very easy for them to switch to a defensive war if they would have been ready. But they weren't. The offensive in Finland the winter before proved, if anything, that the Red Army wasn't able to wage war yet, either offensive or defensive.

But why weren't the defenses staffed? Even in peacetime, defenses are staffed.

Second, you're not giving the Finnish enough credit. Sure, the Red Army wasn't quite ready for an offensive yet, but to ignore the enormous effort of Finland's finest to repulse Soviet aggression is quite rude.

It isn't a biography based on diaries. That would be stupid. Montefiore simply uses those sources to illustrate certain facts. According to him Stalin wanted to keep the peace and in the first hours of Barbarossa even ordered to not give into what he supposed was still a German provocation, not an offensive.

Not quite like Stalin, don't you think? With all his ruthlessness, he was still a highly intelligent man and that order seems really out of character.

Sorry but are you seriously suggesting that the USSR was the most militarily advanced nation in 1941? With what exactly? Their Polikarpov biplanes? Even the T34 was an example of brilliant simplicity, not technological design. A farmer that was proficient with a tractor could drive a T34. The Russians were able to whip their industry into overdrive and that saved their butts.

Yes I am. Compare 1941 Soviet tanks with any other of the period. The T-34 was the most advanced tank in the arsenals of Fall Barbarossa, period. I gave you a comparison below. Highest caliber cannon, best armour plating (not only thick, but also sloped), range, horsepower... And yes, brilliant simplicity is an indication of brilliant technological design. Because if even a tractor driver can fight with a tank effectively, that's brilliance on the part of technical designer.

Now, let's make another comparison:

T-26 was an old light tank, out of production by 1941. Weighing just below 10 tons, with 90 HP, 15/10mm armour plating, 35 km/h top speed, range of 170km and a 45mm cannon it's a rough equivalent of the Pz. II, which had 140 HP, 30/20 armour plating, 40km/h top speed with 190km of range and a 20mm gun mounted.

Sure, you can start splitting hairs now, that the Pz. II has better armour and engine, but note the fact that a T-26 can tear through Pz. IIs from nearly a kilometer away, while the Pz. II has to close in to below 500m to make any significant damage to the T-26.

And the T-26 was an old tank out of production!

Then there are numbers: 1894 T-26s against 219 tanks of a similiar class of the entire 1st Panzer Group. 8.6 to 1 numerical advantage.

And yes, Polikarpovs were present. Alongside (in smaller quantities) IL-2 ground support planes and I-16s, the latter being quite advanced designs, enough to allow Soviet airmen to down a lot of German fighters, including even the newest FW-190s.

A 1934 fighter dwoning two 1941 fighters.

In short, "technological inferiority" of the Soviet army is a myth. Look up the statistics and performance data and it becomes quite evident that the Wehrmacht wasn't a match for the Red Army in 1941.

The T34 was better than the Mk. III or even the Mk. IV. That is no secret. In a 1 versus 1 duel the Russians would win easily. But war isn't fought that way. What the Germans understood was that you need to attack with a large formation concentrated on a very specific part of the front. In that way you will gain numerical superiority in that specific region and with good coordination through radio sets (which the Russian tanks sorely lacked) execute a pinpoint attack. Just outflank a couple of T34's and strike them from the back where they are weak.

There were enough tanks to defend the front, but the Soviets lacked command & control capability, since the Blitzkrieg completely disintegrated the chain of command. That's exactly my point - the defeat was only due to a total communications breakdown, not technological inferiority.

According to what I read about the subject Stalin didn't want to provoke Hitler into a war. He didn't want to appear belligerent in any way so he ordered his troops to basically stand down. This could have also been a pose, reminiscent of 1812. Czar Alexander lured Napoleon into a war and did his utmost to not appear the provoking party. If that Soviet historian Suvulov and Solonin (too bad most of their work isn't translated yet; I don't read Russian) are right, Stalin's handling of the situation could be the perfect ruse to start a war with Germany. He didn't fare very well though the first year and a half.

The theory "didn't want to appear belligerent" is a myth, a fairy tale to me. It doesn't answer any questions, it creates them. Did Stalin suddenly have a lapse of reason? Intermittent debilism? Because actually believing Hitler's word was insanity - to couple it with staggering amounts of ordnance right on the Soviet-German border would be clinical insanity.

As for the pose... Germans were actually surprised by the amounts of ordnance they captured and destroyed (key word. Most of the recorded aircraft and tank losses were caused by the most destructive weapon of them all: an NCO with a lighter), which means the massings weren't supposed to be a lure, at least, not yet.

Solonin's work is particularly interesting, as it includes a lot of background details, quotes from participants and document transcripts, indicating that they were preparing for war and were struck at a critical time, when everything was falling into place.

How were the Germans able then to stay on the offensive until the end of 1942? True, the Russians fought back in the winter of 41/42 but the results they booked were hardly permanent. As soon as the campaigning season started again in the spring of 1942, the Wehrmacht was marching east again. A Blitzkrieg attack can put an army into disarray for days, maybe weeks, but not eighteen months. The only logical reason for that is that the Red Army wasn't ready for war. Stalin knew this and that was why he tried to keep the peace with Hitler as best as he could.

Because most of the military force in the West was focused in the border regions, in preparation for war. Before the Soviets could regain that much military power, the German army was freely rampaging through their lands, encircling and destroying uncoordinated Soviet forces.

True, a Blitzkrieg can't put an army into disarray for days, maybe weeks, but not eighteen months. However, destroying a majority of the enemy army's military ordnance and equipment along with capturing and/or killing thousands of its troops can. True, the Wehrmacht managed to stay on the offensive and record significant victories in 1942. However, they were unstable gains, coming at the expense of supply lines. Nazi Germany
couldn't reinforce their forces fast enough (thanks to Hitler reducing military production; for every 3300 tanks lost, only about 900 could be replaced), there was no specialized equipment to traverse, much less fight in the muddy offroad of western USSR and oil was in very short supply. It was the equivalent of overextending - stretched too thin, the Wehrmacht lost the war in 1942.

And the Soviet counteroffensive of winter 1941/1942? Don't say its results weren't permanent - after all, the Nazis were kicked back to their starting point, away from Moscow, buying enough time to militarize again.

 

[Shakermaker]

Roight, it appears you want to put all your money on two subjective historians which have been disproven. Vaya con dios.

 

[Tagaziel]

Roight, it appears you want to put all your money on two subjective historians which have been disproven. Vaya con dios.

More like shouted down, not disproven. Their theory makes a lot more sense in the context of available data than the headache-inducing fact twisting that has perpetuated Eastern Front history for so long.